WorldNetDaily cranked up the anti-gay fearmongering in a June 21 article:

California, which already demands that public schools only portray homosexuality in a positive light and banned counselors from telling troubled youth they don’t have to be gay, now is moving against pastors and other spiritual leaders.

They, apparently, are guilty of telling homosexuals and others that the Bible teaches something else.

The dispute was revealed by columnist and commentator Todd Starnes, who recently interviewed Dr. David Gibbs of the Christian Law Association.

He explained that churches and pastors are just trying to help LGBT people.

“The proposed resolution also condemns attempts to change unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion as ‘unethical,’ ‘harmful,’ and leading to high rates of suicide,” Starnes reported.

While it is just a non-binding resolution for now, Gibbs said that does not mean it will stay a resolution.

In fact, the resolution doesn't sasy what WND claims it says. As Right Wing Watch documented, ACR 99 calls upon religious leaders to approach LGBTQ issues with love, compassion and knowledge of the harms caused by conversion therapy, and calls upon Californians “to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance.” It also calls upon the people and institutions of California “to model equitable treatment of all people of the state.”

WND does admit it's a nonbinding resolution but fearmongered about it anyway, quoting nobody but Starnes and Gibbs. As usual, WND couldn't be bothered to talk to the state legislator who introduced the resolution or offer any other kind of fairness or balance to its story.

The same day, Michael Brown penned a column that fearmongered even more:

Put another way, these legislators are telling pastors and spiritual leaders to throw out the Bible, disregard the Lord’s will, ignore the testimony of thousands of ex-gays and conform to extreme political correctness – or else.

This is one of the most frontal attacks on our religious freedoms in memory (or perhaps in our nation’s history). And it confirms what I have said for the last 15 years: Those who came out of the closet want to put us in the closet. This is nothing less than that ancient spirit of Jezebel trying to silence God’s messengers through fear and intimidation.

There is one way to respond to such spiritual and legal attacks: First, stand up against the bill in order to expose its bias and bigotry; and second, if the bill should actually pass (which might be a long shot even in California), defy it.

[...]

Should we proclaim God’s love through the cross for every human being? Without a doubt.

But we must not refrain from declaring what God’s Word plainly says: Homosexual practice is contrary to His will, and He does not bless or recognize same-sex “marriages.” And when it comes to transgender identities, biology is not bigotry, and the best solution for people struggling with gender confusion is to help them find wholeness from the inside out.

Should this draconian bill actually become law, the strategy is simple: The Sunday after the bill is passed, every true pastor in California should preach a love-drenched message on what the Bible says about LGBT people and issues.

At no point did Brown acknowledge that ACR 99 is a nonbinding resolution and compels nobody to actually do anything.

(Right Wing Watch has also busted Brown for his false fearmongering about the resolution.)

WND followed up with a June 26 article attacking a chaplain at a Christian college for endorsing the resolution, quoting anti-gay right-wing legal group Liberty Counsel bashing him for having "become a prop for the LGBT agenda by directing pastors and counselors to reject biblical views of sexuality and deny counseling for those struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion." WND also bashed the school itself, Azusa Pacific University, for having allegedly "drifted" from its original mission." The article failed to tell readers that the resolution is nonbinding.

MRC's Double Standard on The Comedian Defense, Part 2Topic: Media Research Center

Last week, we noted how the Media Research Center defended right-winger Steven Crowder's homophobic trolling of gay journalist Carlos Maza as being the work of a "comedian" -- then attacked actual comedian Seth Meyers because he makes fun of President Trump.

The double standard continued in a June 19 post by Jorge Plaza -- two days after the defense of Crowder. In it, Plaza ranted against comedians he declared were "unfunny" because ... they didn't mock gay people, or something:

On June 19, The Hollywood Reporter fashioned a list of the top 40 “most powerful people in comedy” for 2019. It’s a predictable gaggle of reliable lefties and reads more like a wanted poster for the gang that ruined comedy.

The first big-name entry was Sacha Baron Cohen of Borat fame. Though since the 2006 blockbuster hit, the liberal Cohen has struggled to reclaim his “glory” days. His go-to gag is to ambush conservatives to make them look dumb, actively pandering to a lefty audience.

Unfortunately for Cohen, everyone recognizes his oddly oblong face and lanky body from Borat, so his disguises don’t work anymore. Now, whenever Cohen disguises himself to trick a conservative into saying something stupid, he embarrasses himself.

For this next entry, THR was kind enough to provide the readers bits of the comedian’s hilarity. For the description of comic Hannah Gadsby from Nanette, THR explained that the Netflix “comedy” special “was framed as Gadsby’s farewell to a decade-plus career in comedy, as she tackles misogyny, homophobia (including the internalized variety) and mental illness.” Ah yes, because people go to comedy clubs for gender studies lectures, right?

[...]

Of course, late-night propaganda shows are prominent on the list. But tellingly, THR didn’t bother to distinguish between them, simply listing them as “The Late-Night Hosts.” Can’t blame the site. The repetitive Trump-hate and liberal applause fodder Colbert, Kimmell, Fallon, Oliver, Bee, and co. slop out every night is largely indistinguishable.

[...]

In the left’s PC crusade against comedy, these are the people that we are left with to harold as comedic geniuses: washed-up gross-out artists that depend on crude vulgarity for laughs. Gone are the days of boundary pushing comedians like George Carlin and Dave Chappelle. Welcome to the age of “Woke Comedy.”

Ah, to pine for the days of un-woke "comedians" like Crowder and their wacky homophobia...

Lauren DeBellis Appell began her June 24 Newsmax column complaining that Mastercard will it will do away with legally binding names on cards, and instead let customers pick the name that goes on their card" through the True Name card "to affirm the LGBTQ community by offering a card that reflects their true identity."

Appell managed to avoid gratuitous LGBT-bashing in her column, which is a refreshing change. She did express concerns about security:

Problem solved -- not so fast. While that all sounds lovely and affirming and sensitive to one group of people, in the race to be politically correct we’re ignoring the glaring elephant in the room. One that has the potential to, at best, raise several serious, unaddressed questions and, at worst, breed a whole other litany of problems.

What are the safety and security implications? What about the potential for fraud? How about ID theft? Has anyone thought any of this through at all? Bueller… Bueller… anyone? All signs point to no, they have not.

After a detour about the legal hurdles she faced in changing her name (adding her married name and dropping a first name she didn't use and that "felt completely foreign and didn't represent me"), she concluded by leaping to the worst-case scenario:

Mastercard’s eagerness to show they’re sensitive to the LGBTQ community with the “True Name” card begs the question: when people are allowed to use differing forms of conflicting personal identification, what could possibly go wrong?

Has anyone thought through the obvious temptation for organized crime? Has anyone thought through the obvious temptation for terrorists — either those from abroad or people here who’ve been radicalized; all of whom are hell bent on destruction?

We shouldn’t, in the interest of being politically correct, wait until it’s too late to find out.

As if credit card companies wouldn't be fully thinking through security issues before implementing the card.

CNS Sends Interns To Pester Members of Congress AgainTopic: CNSNews.com

It's a time-honoredtradition at CNS: Send its summer interns out to pester members of Congress with the resume-padding busywork of a quasi-loaded question. And, thus, CNS' interns spent late June hounding congressfolk with the highly scripted, pro-Trump-biased question: “Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution says the president ‘shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’ Do you think that the president has a constitutional duty to enforce the immigration laws on the books?”

CNS got a whopping 14 articles out of this schtick by our count, one for each congressperson they cornered on the question:

There's little actual news value here. Part of the point of this exercise is get the intern some resume material in the form of being able to say they asked a member of Congress a question. That can be helpful -- look at where it got former intern Sam Dorman. But it's a gotcha exercise too; any congressperson who fails to give the conservatively correct answer will be pilloried at CNS, with the hope of blowing up the incident into the larger conservative media (and the intern can get partial credit for that too).

It also, however, reinforces the idea that CNS is less and less about reporting the news and more and more about crafting right-wing propaganda.

NEW ARTICLE: The MRC Suffers From Acosta Derangement SyndromeTopic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center just can't stop spewing hatred and venom at the CNN correspondent for the offense of failing to be a pro-Trump shill. Read more >>

WND's Peterson Takes His White-Supremacist Schtick To A Whole New LevelTopic: WorldNetDaily

We've documented how WorldNetDaily columnist Jesse Lee Peterson loves to sound like a white supremacist while hiding behind his privilege as a black conservative to avoid facing any consequences for his extreme rhetoric. Since he faces no consequences, he took the white-supremacist schtick up to 11 in his July 7 column:

One man, President Donald Trump, is restoring America to its original greatness. God bless America, and God bless the Great White Hope, President Trump! With this year’s Salute to America on Independence Day in the nation’s capital, it’s finally clear that America is back!

I am 70 years old. I have not seen such an inspiring patriotic celebration since I was a kid. The president’s speech, and the event that he put together for the Fourth of July, expressed his pure love for our country.

I have noticed that no other group of people in the United States truly loves America as a whole like white people do. While growing up on the plantation, and throughout my life, I’ve watched white people proudly honor the country with visible displays of affection and respect. They support freedom, independence, true justice (not fake “social justice”), and adherence to our laws and Constitution like no one else. They work hard, create businesses, jobs and inventions, and – right or wrong – share these opportunities with others, and selflessly support others’ rights. President Trump is a perfect example of this love.

I wondered why it is that white people love the country so much, while blind people of color don’t share an appreciation for their opportunities. I realized that it’s because white men founded and built America, the greatest country on earth. Everybody and their mama want to come here – we can’t even keep the illegals out! But once they’re here, whether by choice or by force, they turn on the country and the white people who allowed them to be here. Nowadays, only whites have it in them to love and preserve America.

[...]

Last year, I declared July to be White History Month. Doesn’t July just feel white? It’s because of white people that we have Independence Day in America. In this country, we have the ridiculous “Black History Month” for so-called “African Americans” who don’t feel like they’re part of America. Homosexuals get two separate months! One celebrates so-called “Pride” and the other “LGBT history,” as if there’s anything good about homosexuality, transgenderism or any of that crap. Why not White History Month? Decent whites are hated – for no reason – by the people of color andchildren of the lie.

[...]

This is why I want white people to marry and make white babies. I call on all people of good will to appreciate white people. If we lose whites as a majority, we lose America.

All his greatest hits are there -- calling Trump the "Great White Hope" while igoring the racist history of the phrase , the gratuitous anti-LGBT smear, the hatred of his own race.

If David Duke said this, he would be treated like the white supremacist he is. Peterson is simply mimicking Duke -- and making himself look like a clown. But that sort of thing apparently goes over well at WND.

Even The MRC Can't Make A Decent Case For The Laffer CurveTopic: Media Research Center

Media Research Center intern Joseph Valle complains in a June 20 post:

President Donald Trump infuriated the left again on June 19, when he awarded supply-side economist Arthur Laffer the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

The left’s reaction was predictably vicious. An MSNBC analyst called Laffer one of the most “destructive forces” in economics since Herbert Hoover. New York Magazine writer Jonathan Chait minced no words about his anger over Laffer’s award ceremony, calling him a “kook” elevated to “metaphysical status” within the Republican Party. He ridiculed Laffer’s theory as “provably untrue” and based on a “fake curve.”

Laffer was an economic adviser for President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and developed his namesake Laffer Curve in 1974 describing the relationship between tax rates and total tax revenue. Laffer has been a proponent of tax cuts to stimulate the economy and advised Trump to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. He’s also co-author of the book Trumponomics with fellow free-market economist Stephen Moore.

“Economists do not take Laffer’s claims seriously,” Chait sneered for NY Mag. Conservative economists would disagree with that claim, but the liberal media rarely give them the opportunity.

Oddly, neither did Valle -- at no point does he cite a conservative economist defending the Laffer Curve. Even the Investopedia explainer of the concept to which Valle links pointed out that "There are some fundamental problems with the Laffer Curve — notably that it is far too simplistic in its assumptions," and that "policy makers would be in practice unable to observe the shape of the Laffer Curve, the location of T* [the optimal tax level], whether multiple T*’s exist, or whether and how the Laffer Curve might shift over time."

Valle further undermined his case by citing conservative Noah Rothman pointing out that the Laffer Curve had "a lot against it over the years" -- making him sound not all that different from Chait (though Rothman went on to blame entitlement programs for federal deficit issues, like a good conservative).

If Valle can't even make a good case for the Laffer Curve while defending Laffer, that's probably a sign that no good case can be made.

Finally, Valle is silent on Laffer's flattery of Trump in the form of co-authoring a book on "Trumponomics" as a possible, if not likely, reason Laffer received his award from a vainglorious president (not to mention Moore's ill-fated nomination to the Federal Reserve board).

Instead, Jones actually includes Castro's full, lengthy answer, in which it's shown that remark is taken out of context because Castro was making a larger point about the perpetrators of crime not necessarily being defined by wealth or ethnicity:

Let me begin to answer that question by saying, look, all of us know as human beings that regardless of circumstance, whether people are rich, or poor, no matter the color of their skin, what their background is, that people commit crime. Crime happens.

Despite the headline, Jones' real purpose was to attack Castro for failing to hate illegal immigrants the way she does, since the question was framed as coming from "a woman who said an illegal immigrant stole her Social Security Number" and Jones was determined to suggest that all illegal immigrants are hardened criminals.

Jones huffed at the end in defense of her hero: "President Trump continually rails against 'open-borders Democrats' in Congress who refuse to fix the nation's broken immigration laws."

Between the headline and the story itself, Castro was victimized by two different types of media bias from CNS.

The Media Research Center can't refrain from attacking a perceived enemy even when that person is acting on behalf of a good cause. Aiden Jackson complains in a June 18 post:

Everyone appreciates when a meddling celebrity with little understanding of governmental operations tells members of Congress how to do their jobs, sarcasm intended. This rings especially true when the member of Congress they are criticizing is a Republican. Nevertheless, Jon Stewart continued his endless attacks on Mitch McConnell during a guest appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert Monday night.

Although pursuing a noble goal of securing compensation for the first responders of the 9/11 terrorist attack, it seems it is Stewart who is making the situation as politically charged as possible for no apparent reason by attacking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In responding to a video of McConnell calling Stewart “bent out of shape,” Stewart bemoaned:

No! No! No! No, Mitch McConnell, I'm not bent out of shape… Basically, we're saying, ‘You love the 9/11 community when they serve your political purposes, but when they are in urgent need, you slow walk, you dither, you use it as a political pawn to get other things you want, and you don't get the job done completely.

To suggest a person only cares about the victims of a terrorist attack when it suits their needs politically is a typically vicious claim coming from a liberal comedian. Especially when there is evidence to the contrary, neither McConnell nor any other sitting member of Congress has presented a barrier to passing the Never Forget Our Heroes Act.

[...]

The fact of the matter is, the Never Forget Our Heroes Act was never in danger of losing funding. Especially considering it has been renewed many times over in the past.

Jackson is simply parroting what McConnell himself has said -- which, of course, ignores the point Stewart was making: If the funding is so uncontroversial, there's no reason to wait until the last minute to approve it. If the funding "has been renewed many times over in the past," there's no reason to wait for it to get approved again. And there is some urgency, given that the fund is starting to run short of funds.

Stewart eventually got results -- McConnell will reportedly meet with 9/11 responder survivors, and he said a vote on the issue is upcoming. It's unlikely, of course, that Jackson will ever give Stewart for that because he's more angry that a Republican politician was insulted in the public square.

An anonymously written June 25 WorldNetDaily article breathlessly asserts:

Yet another major Obama administration scandal has been uncovered.

This one centered on then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper leaking classified information that endangered national security “in an attempt to undermine President Trump,” according to the American Center for Law and Justice.

ACLJ’s Jay Sekulow said Clapper changed policy to make it easier to share intercepted information among intelligence agencies, according to documents obtained through several Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against the ODNI and the National Security Agency.

They revealed that Clapper, in the latter days of his tenure as ODNI, “rushed” put new procedures in place.

“The documents also reveal that ODNI’s Robert Litt told Office of the Undersecretary of Defenses’ Director of Intelligence Strategy, Policy, & Integration (and also USDI’s Liaison to ODNI): ‘Really want to get this done … and so does the Boss.”

The documents show the plan was approved by Clapper and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

“It was not immediately clear just how significant these revelations were. Now we know,” ACLJ said.

“Consider what we now know about the nature and degree of Deep State opposition to President Trump. With the public revelations about the infamous disgrace known as the Steele dossier, FISA abuse and the underpinnings of Crossfire Hurricane, as well as former-DNI James Clapper’s open hostility to President Trump and intentional leaking by senior law enforcement and intelligence actors – all of which appears to show a coordinated effort across agencies to oppose the Trump administration – the picture is coming into focus,” ACLJ said.

Here's the back story. In July 2008, outgoing President Bush modified a 2004 executive order (which was itself a modification of a 1981 EO signed by Ronald Reagan) on intelligence sharing. The new executive order made it easier for the National Security Agency (NSA), to share the vast quantities of data it was collecting with other members of the intelligence community (IC), particularly the CIA and FBI. Reasonable people can argue, as Edward Snowden did, that the NSA is amassing dangerous amounts of data and needs to be reined in. But after 9-11, the IC was roundly blamed for failing to share information that might have prevented the attacks. So George W. Bush, a Republican, ordered the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Defense to put their heads together and come up with some procedures for intelligence sharing between the agencies. These are the procedures Jay Sekulow is pretending were instituted to enable the DEEP STATE to spy on Donald Trump.

Which makes no goddamn sense, but HEY HELLO have you seen this email from Office of the DNI's General Counsel Robert Litt saying, "Really, really want to get this done ... and so does the Boss"? What if you knew that SOMEONE sent an email saying, "We could have a signature from the AG as early as this week, certainly prior to the 20th Jan?" Would you then be convinced that these plans which had been in the work for eight years were part of a sinister plot to tapp Trump's fraying, orange wires?

[...]

Check out the 26 pages of procedures for unaccountability to provide "classified information" to those "bureaucrats" at the FBI and CIA who have satisfied legally binding criteria establishing their need for it and undergone extensive training on how to keep it secure. Pretty nefarious of James Clapper and Loretta Lynch to want to get this signed before leaving office, huh Jay?

[...]

Moreover, as Marcy Wheeler points out, Trump could have rescinded that executive order any time in the past two-and-a-half years if he thought it was a license to spy on him. But he didn't give a damn until his lawyer managed to cherry-pick three pages from a document dump -- uploading them as three, separate PDFs with zero context is a nice touch -- and launched himself into a rant about DEEP STATE OBAMA FBI CONSPIRACY ARGLEBARGLE HENGHHHHHH.

And WND forgets to inform its dwindling reader base that Sekulow is also wearing the hat of Trump's attorney, which makes the validity of the claims -- which WND could not be bothered to verify -- even more suspect.

Burt why let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, right, WND?

New Book Sends MRC's Acosta Derangement Syndrome Into The StratosphereTopic: Media Research Center

CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta's new book, "The Enemy of the People," was sure to set the Media Research Center's already highlevels of Acosta Derangement Syndrome into the stratosphere, and darn it if that isn't exactly what happened.

Tim Graham kicked off the MRC's Acosta book attack with a May 29 post complaining that Acosta used anonymous sources to back up assertions about Trump: "This is exactly the kind of anonymous sourcing that's irresponsible, just protecting someone taking a pot shot. Did either of these sources -- or it could be the same person -- work for President Obama? That would color the quote, wouldn't it? " Of course, the MRC doesinvoke anonymous sources when it serves its right-wing agenda to do so (and to attack Acosta).

On June 9, as we've noted, Nicholas Fondacaro actually agreed with Acosta that the media are not the "enemy of the people" before his ADS kicked in and he huffed about a "vomit-inducing interview" he did to promote the book.

Graham returned to sneer in a June 11 post after Acosta said in another interview that "I have never witnessed a concerted effort by any news organization to take a stand one way or the other on a political issue, to damage one particular party or help another," retorting in response: "This is about as plausible as saying 'I have never witnessed any person eating a hamburger.'"

Graham served up more mocking a couple days later and was too busy sneering at Acosta for serving up "bipartisan-unity talk" to fully acknowledge that Acosta was being interviewed by a conservative, Hugh Hewitt. He sneered that Acosta's worry about President Trump's repeated attacks on the media endandering journalisdts is just a "tale" and adding: "Yes, when you think of unifying people -- the kind that want to grab a Coke bottle and teach the world to sing in perfect harmony -- it's not Jim Acosta. If you wonder why Acosta doesn't sound like this on CNN, the answer is simple. CNN isn't television for Republicans. It's Resistance TV."

CNN chief White House correspondent and cartoonishly self-centered Jim Acosta released on Tuesday his 354-page work of narcissism, The Enemy of the People: A Dangerous Time to Tell the Truth in America. And, folks, it’s everything you thought it would be and then some.

From defending his showboating to admitting that he’s at times belligerent on purpose to conceding that fellow journalists loathe him, Acosta’s conceited argle bargle showcased Acosta at its worst and the dangers of the liberal media’s belief that the First Amendment only concerns them, neglecting how it also gives Americans the right to chant “CNN sucks.”

So, without any further adieu, check out this Notable Quotable-style package of quotes. And with 96 Post-It notes in the book obtained by NewsBusters, the following only represents a sampling of the nonsense.

In other words, you’re welcome, America.

Yes, Houck did link to a photo from his personal Twitter account showing how many sticky notes he put in Acosta's book while "reading" it.

Houck toned things down just a bit for a post the next day in which he proclaimed that Acosta was a "narcissistic Looney Tune" and included more samples from the book, whining at one point that "On pages 14 and 15 in his 354-page screed, Acosta dithered away for seven paragraphs about how he was incensed that, on the eve of the 2016 election, then-candidate Donald Trump 'refused the time-honored tradition for a presidential candidate of posing in front of the plane for a photo with journalists covering his or here campaign.'"

It seems that if anyone's acting cartoonish here, it's Houck in his way-over-the-top hate for Acosta. Does the MRC pay him by the gallon of bile he spews?

Interesting, that last Houck post was the last time the MRC has devoted a post to Acosta, about his book or him in general. Has it finally realized how ridiculous it has looked with its obsessive Acosta-hate?

Where Are They Now? CNS' 'Protester' Intern Now Writes for Fox NewsTopic: CNSNews.com

You might remember a few years back that a CNSNews.com intern named Sam Dorman got a bit of attention for asking a anti-abortion gotcha question to Nancy Pelosi that piqued her anger, then stoked right-wing outrage about being described as a "anti-abortion protester" over the question and demanded that he be acknowledged as "a credentialed member of the press" (though he later admitted that his question was designed to provoke hostility toward him). The folks who run CNS, the Media Research Center, then tried to raise money over the manufactured controversy, which told us that the question was, in fact, an act of protest.

Well, it appears Donman has managed to parlay that incident into a career: he's now a reporter for Fox News, which like CNS has similarly blurry lines between reporting and advocacy.

Much of his output is the usual right-wing stenography that woldn't look out of place at CNS; typical is a July 3 piece headlined "Ilhan Omar promotes ex-Hillary aide's unhinged anti-Trump attacks." He also penned a Jun 12 piece falsely privileging "Dr. Alveda King," ignoring the fact that her doctorate is honorary and not earned.

It appears that the MRC granted Dorman an entry into right-wing journalism by helping him manufacture a controversy, and he has exploited that to further his own career. Congratulations, or something.

Friday’s New York Times showed the paper again trying to falsely link the publicly harmful anti-vaccination movement to political conservatism. Reporters Julie Bosman, Patricia Mazzei, and Dan Levin drew the strands together for “Celebrities, Conservatives and Immigrants in Disparate Groups of Skeptics.”

It’s not the first time the paper has tried to falsely smear “conservatives” as the main thrust of anti-vaccine action, even though the most recent polling on the matter suggests it’s more of a left-wing cause. In fact, two “red states” often mocked as backward, Mississippi and West Virginia, are nationwide leaders in getting their children vaccinated.

Amazingly for a story whose headline blasts “conservatives” for being anti-vaccine, the first sentence features the anti-vaccine conspiracist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., of the famous uber-liberal Democrat political family.

[...]

Robert F. Kennedy, who falsely believes that vaccines cause autism, was not even identified as part of the liberal Kennedy clan, though he is the son of the late Democratic Attorney General (in the administration of his brother John) and a Democratic U.S. Senator.

At no point does Waters prove that RFK Jr. is a "liberal," despite playing guilt-by-association, as it were, by invoking the politics of his family -- in fact, the Kennedy family has distanced itself from him on the issue of vaccines -- nor does Waters link him to any anti-vaccine movement on the left. To the contrary: When RFK Jr.'s anti-vaccine activism first became known, it was right-wing outlets like WorldNetDaily and Newsmax -- not liberal outlets -- that gave him an uncritical platform. Indeed, Waters unironically illustrates his piece with a screenshot of RFK Jr. on ... Fox News in 2017, where Tucker Carlson fed him softball questions and did not challenge his anti-vaxxer beliefs.

Waters' evidence that anti-vaccine activism is "more of a left-wing cause" is a 2014 article on the right-wing Real Clear Science website sorting states with the highest vaccine exemption rates by the margin by which a presidential candidate won in 2012 -- which, of course, is an imprecise measure because it says nothing about the individual political views of those seeking exemptions. After all, while New York is considered a liberal state, this year's measles outbreak occurred mostly among unvaccinated people in an ultra-Orthodox enclave in New York City not known for liberal politics.

And, of course, Waters also forgets that the publisher of his blog posts was anti-vaxxer at one point, fearmongering that HPV vaccines like Gardasil had "dangerous" side effects and even encouraged children to have sex.

The original goal of the LGBT movement in the 1950s was tolerance, what Dale Jennings of the Mattachine Society called “The right to be left alone.”

But exactly 50 years ago, in the Stonewall riots, homofascism was born – when the movement set its sights on replacing family-centered society with sexual anarchy. Activists’ detailed agenda was published soon after as “The 1972 Gay Rights Platform,” and they launched a united national campaign for “sexual freedom” to be recognized as a constitutional right.

[...]

Having fulfilled his globalist mission to establish “Gay Supremacy” in America, [Anthony] Kennedy recently retired from the court after (I strongly suspect) assuring that his legacy would be preserved by the nomination of his former clerk Brett Kavanaugh to fill his vacancy. (I sincerely hope I am wrong about Kavanaugh and will apologize profusely if in future cases he shows integrity in helping to reverse Kennedy’s errors.)

So here we stand in 2019, four years after Obergefell and the LGBTs instant pivot to “transgenderism” (and pedophilia), watching small children being deliberately infected with hyper-sexual transgender insanity to the applause of the entire leftist bloc, and Congress seriously debating the so-called Equality Act to criminalize Christianity in America.

Throughout this decades-long process, America has been pushed inexorably by the leftist elites through the five stages of homofascism until today celebration of all things LGBT is the norm, forced participation in “gay” culture is increasing rapidly, and punishment of dissenters is a virtual mandate of social justice in the minds of the millennials. God help us!

Can this process be reversed? I believe it can, but only if conservatives, including our presumed five-member majority on the Supreme Court, remember what it is that conservatism exists to conserve: the God-fearing, family-centered, constitutional republic our founders fought a bloody revolution to secure for us.

CNS Still Wants You To Know That 'Beto' Isn't O'Rourke's Real NameTopic: CNSNews.com

A whole back, we documented how CNSNews.com's coverage of Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke is so petty that it feels it must emphasize at every opportunity that Beto is not his given name (despite him going by that name since he was a child). That hasn't stopped.

A May 22 article by Patrick Goodenough begins: Democrat presidential hopeful Robert 'Beto' O’Rourke used the first question in a CNN town hall on Tuesday to accuse President Trump of calling immigrants 'animals' and an 'infestation,' and stating that the president tried to “ban all Muslims” from entering the U.S."

Goodenough was in an unusually fact-check-obsessed mood with this article -- unlike for, say President Trump -- for he immediately wrote afterward: "All three claims, made within minutes of the start of the CNN event in Des Moines, Iowa, have been contested. None were challenged by CNN’s moderator, Dana Bash." And when O'Rourke claimed that Trump tried to "ban all Muslims" from entering the country through executive orders, Goodenough huffed: "As CNSNews.com has reported, they apply to citizens of a small minority of Muslim-majority countries."

Susan Jones took her own shot in a May 28 article: "'Most asylum-seekers pose no threat or danger to the United States,' Robert 'Beto' O'Rourke told CBS's 'Face the Nation' on Sunday." Like Goodenoughh, she referred to O'Rourke as a "Democrat presidential candidate" -- a misuse of the word "Democratic" done when owning the libs is more important than correct grammar.

Jones also referenced "Robert "Beto" O'Rourke" in a separate May 28 article.

Craig Millward threw in as well in a June 17 article, though he got his grammar correct: "Speaking on CNN’s 'State of the Union' on Sunday, Democratic presidential candidate and former Rep. Robert Francis 'Beto' O’Rourke said he does not think the law regarding making illegal border crossings a crime should be repealed."